EU fails again to grasp rules of propriety

Fall-out from the John Dalli case shows how the EU institutions keep getting it wrong when it comes to lobbying.

European Voice

1/9/13, 8:14 PM CET

Updated 1/22/16, 12:40 PM CET

There is an enduring truth about the regulation of lobbying in and around the European Union that the EU’s own institutions repeatedly show themselves incapable of grasping. It is that conformity with whatever codes of conduct are in force is not in itself sufficient: there must be the appearance of propriety. A classical education is not as common as it once was, but the old dictum “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion” still applies.

Time and time again, the EU institutions have been found not to understand the appearance of propriety. Perhaps because there is no shortage of lawyers in Brussels, it is the legal mind that dominates. The legal instinct is to quibble, to argue over definitions and over how to interpret the codes of conduct. What seems to be lacking is a political instinct, which is odd because Brussels is not exactly short of politicians either. You would expect politicians to be sensitive to how issues of ethics and propriety might play with in the perceptions of the general public.

The European Commission finds itself in a spot of bother this week over the various roles of Michel Petite, a former head of its legal service and sometime head of the private office of Romano Prodi, then the Commission president. In retirement, Petite is working for a law firm and in that capacity had meetings with the Commission’s legal service. Among the clients of his law firm, Clifford Chance, is the tobacco firm Philip Morris. The Commission has disclosed to the European Parliament that Petite spoke to members of the Commission’s legal service about “legal issues of tobacco legislation”. Cue outrage and indignation from anti-tobacco and transparency campaigners.

What compounds the Commission’s embarrassment on this point is that Petite is a member of a three-person ethics committee that has been given the task of advising the Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, on the jobs that European commissioners take up after they leave the Commission. Their job is to guard against ex-commissioners taking on jobs that present a risk of conflicts of interest and other inappropriate appointments. Petite has just been re-appointed to the committee.

Awareness that appearances matter should have told Barroso or his advisers that Petite should no longer sit on the ethics committee. Those who know Petite will value his experience and expertise and will be confident that he is a sea-green incorruptible. But knowledge of the individual cannot trump the importance of appearances. To police the post-Commission activities of commissioners by using the (unpaid) services of someone who is working for a law firm engaged in lobbying looks cock-eyed. It does not help that his firm is one of those law firms that refuse to sign up to the transparency register of the Commission and the Parliament. It is hard to believe that Petite’s contribution to the work of this ethics committee justifies the embarrassment now caused to the EU. Others, just as qualified but free of any disqualification, could have been found to fill Petite’s shoes.

The upshot of all this is more grist to the mill of conspiracy theorists who believe the tobacco companies are manipulating the European Union. The application of common sense and hardnosed political judgement would have avoided this discomfort.